cognitorex

If one of nature's animals, for instance , bears, became addicted to an illegal substance such as garbage from suburban neighborhoods and they started dying in droves because of a chemical element of the garbage pails themselves then, no one would lift an eyebrow if a government taxing entity supplied funds to remove such lethal element from the equation.
The press report would be simple and uncomplicated: that government funds have been offered to remove and replace the toxic garbage pails.
Why then do people calling themselves Conservatives withhold life saving measures from a hapless addicted population who not only die in droves due to their addictive behavior but also in some instances spread a deadly disease in the non-addicted population.
If a son or daughter of a Congress person were to slide into the sad and gruesome life of an addict, such Congress person would go to any lengths to keep their child alive, crying and gnashing their teeth in the hell of addiction while desperately hoping their child might survive.
Who then do they condemn to death? Why are these people not deserving of the same treatment that would be offered to a troubled and dying animal population? What exactly does 'Conservative' mean; let the poor die?
--Craig Johnson--